MovieChat Forums > Aquaman (2018) Discussion > The most successful non-animated underwa...

The most successful non-animated underwater movie so far


I am speaking of it's worldwide gross. Any objection?

reply

That's impressive! "Squirm" (1976) was the most successful killer worm movie ever released.

reply

Worldwide gross?

reply

I think Wichak is making a point of how narrow of a field it is.

reply

I got his sarcasm. Thanks for your explanation anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Underwater_action_films

reply

Wow, that is a NARROW Focus....

How did the Abyss do?

reply

Probably right next to Aquaman, if we don't count Jaws (1975) as a underwater movie.

reply

Or titanic....they ended up there. Except for Rose, that lousy door-hog.

reply

"Sinking ship doesn't count. " said Pirates of the Caribbean.

reply

DON'T quote a Disney movie! It'll drive the DC Zealots insane!!!

reply

LOL

reply

Yes, yes, yes.... Great, this is the most successful movie starting Jason Momoa, Amber Heard and a Trident. What an awesome accomplishment, never to be seen again...

reply

I didn't invent the "underwater movie" category. I just focused it with "non-animated" because I do think it is an awesome accomplishment.

reply

Hi aquaman

reply

What about the smash 2002 non animated hit “Submarine Joo and his underwater croo “

reply

You made 18 posts in last 45 minutes. A cup of hot black coffee might help.

reply

What are you implying ?

reply

Given the amount of CGI I'm not sure you can label it non-animated. Even when we were watching real people they looked like characters from a game and I'm wondering how much remodeling went on to get that slightly plastic feel to everyone's features.

reply

The amount of CGI in a $160M budget film like this? Hell Yeah! Why not?
What I meant by ”non-animated" is that "Aquaman" is not an animation like "Finding Dory". I watched Aquaman in 3D theatre from close, yet didn't notice any "plastic feel". All main characters looked natural to me and the underwater world is quite splendid!

reply

Agreed, Aquaman is not animation in the traditional sense. But I'm wondering at what point a film, where most frames are CGI and the remaining frames apparently processed to blend in, can be said to be animated. To my eye the whole film took on the look of a not quite realistic computer game. As it happens I watched Mortal Engines a few days earlier and even though a film based on Traction Cities is an equally ridiculous premise and least the people in it looked like people.

reply

Apparently you have a higher expectation of the realistic appearance of the characters when they are underwater. Which I think is quite a challege and they did good enough in this film. Maybe your are right- they can do it better in the Aquaman sequel.

reply

Fair enough. Despite my carping it was watchable and I'd probably turn up for a sequel - given the earnings so far I suspect there will one.

reply

Wouldn't what the movie "net" (couldn't help myself) be a much better sign of success than gross?

reply

Gross is not the only measure, for sure. From investment point of view, it is all about "net". Yet, why should the cost (budget) be a negative factor? After all, people in the film industry are earning those money, which is good. That's why I think as long as the film is not losing money, measuring the success with "gross" is better.

reply

Good for the industry,but not a good measure of success.

reply

Why not? Can you elaborate?

reply

The artistic and commercial success are astounding.

James Wan and his team delivered. BIG TIME.

The amount of salty fanboy tears from certain factions says it all.

reply